This "veil of secrecy" at Apple has proven to be remarkably effective, particularly with respect to product development and marketing.

The advantages far outweigh the costs.

And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.

while I see the financial reasons for maintaining this site, I'm shocked that after being treated so rudely by apple's legal department, this site still refuses to report negatively toward anything about apple.

I GET the fascination with the company, posts like this that show the dark underbelly of what goes on at Apple are really interesting. I'm just shocked that if I ran a site, say, for I dunno, a band I liked, and then the band tried to sue me. I would probably continue the blog, especially if it brought in cash, but I would have a hard time being so blindly postive and, I dunno a better word for it, but I wouldn't be quite as ball-sucking as Apple Insider is at times with it's articles, particularly with reviews and any news having to do with microsoft...

while I expect a favortism toward mac products here, sometimes the apple blinders are up in full force, and it's hard to find an objective point of view.

My entitlement is due to the fact I invested hard earned money into their stock and I have a right under the law to such important information. If Apple does not want to abide by the law or wants this type of privacy then let them take that stockpile of cash and take the company private.

The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Again, if you can show us where Apple was required, under the law, to disclose SJ's (still alleged) liver transplant, (allegedly) undertaken during a period in which he was not serving as a corporate officer, under any law, then please do it.

We have a dr. here who thinks its the law for a man heath to be of public record.

Not sure what you mean here exactly, but nobody said this, least of all me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tt92618

Again, if you can show us where Apple was required, under the law, to disclose SJ's (still alleged) liver transplant, (allegedly) undertaken during a period in which he was not serving as a corporate officer, under any law, then please do it.

I never said this either. What I did say I said several times already.

1) Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller is said to be among the members of Apple's top brass who play an integral role in helping to track down employees who disclose advance product information to members of the press. At times, it's reported, he has held internal product briefings in which he's disseminated inaccurate details of an upcoming product's prices or features, then attempts to track down the source of news reports that print the incorrect information.

2) The Times even recalls a widely publicized case five years ago in which Apple attempted to subpoenaed AppleInsider's Kasper Jade and the PowerPage's Jason O'Grady to force them to identify sources who provided accurate details of an unreleased hardware product code-named Asteroid. The journalists refused to cooperate and instead enlisted the services of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as their counsel.

Eventually, the case went to court with Apple arguing that online journalists shouldn't be afforded the same protections as print journalists. A three-judge panel in the California Court of Appeals ultimately sided unanimously in favor Jade and O'Grady, ruling that they were indeed entitled to the same protections as conventional reporters and would not have to identify their sources. During the proceedings, the court made it clear to Apple that it had no grounds to railroad online reporters into doing their dirty work of uncovering leakers.

3) But Apple's veil of secrecy covers more than just products.

that Mr. Jobs was suffering only from a hormonal imbalance seem like a deliberate mistruth, unless Mr. Jobss health condition suddenly deteriorated."

The word "presumptively" is the key here. Those are the items which must be disclosed. Other material events are arguably covered by the general need to disclose material events. Note also that this list is seven years old, and the document says that this list was expected to be expanded. I believe it was under Sarbanes-Oxley.

I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you obviously know little about Sarbanes-Oxley.

I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time. I am sure opportunities will present themselves in the future, given your predilections to make sweeping statements.........

Really, what’s the argument for how Apple has suffered for its secrecy? Questions from the SEC? A few grumbling investors?

Peanuts.

Yes, Apple is far more secretive than most companies, but they’re also far more successful. Measured by profit and revenue and growth, the big picture tells us that their "secrecy" policy is right on the money. It's a winning formula that carries with it some costs. Small price to pay for the long-term benefits that occurred from Seve Jobs' return to the present day. Apple's policies, practices and philosophy have paid off magnificently - for the company, for users, and even investors.

This should all be quite obvious, anyway. It really doesn't require a NYT "report."

I have no idea what you are talking about. And, you obviously know little about Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.

Quote:

I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time. I am sure opportunities will present themselves in the future, given your predilections to make sweeping statements.........

I'm not surprised, especially since I've made no "sweeping statements" that you've made any effort to actually identify. I have only pointed out the conflicting explanations the experts have offered about the need for event reporting.

I'm not surprised, especially since I've made no "sweeping statements" that you've made any effort to actually identify. I have only pointed out the conflicting explanations the experts have offered about the need for event reporting.

Why do you keep arguing with them?

You've been here two months, and you haven't figured out yet that these guys would rather lose a nut before they would say anything even slightly disparaging about Apple?

Jobs could shit on their beds in the middle of the night, and they'd call it a pillow mint.

And as for Steve Jobs' health, Apple is not required by law to disclose sweet f**k all to anyone. Those who are critical of Apple about this are either morally reprehensible themselves or just plain stupid.

I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.

In Mr. Jobs’s case, doctors say there was no need, and little opportunity, to cheat the system. Under current procedures, any transplant center ranks potential liver recipients on its waiting list, with the highest rankings based on how sick the patients are and how long they have been that sick. Jumping ahead of a sicker patient is not allowed.

Ok.

I don't see how the article is "just as important."

He got a liver transplant. It was successful (relatively speaking.) His doctors say everything was done above-board.

In Mr. Jobs’s case, doctors say there was no need, and little opportunity, to cheat the system. Under current procedures, any transplant center ranks potential liver recipients on its waiting list, with the highest rankings based on how sick the patients are and how long they have been that sick. Jumping ahead of a sicker patient is not allowed.

Ok.

So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.

So does that means he was pretty damn sick then? Metastatic cancer is some serious shit.

I don't know how sick he was or how advanced his cancer was. Only his doctors really know all the facts.

I assume that someone has to be pretty sick in order to get a liver transplant, regardless of the exact disease, and that appearing higher on the list means you're worse off relative to others on the list.

I don't care HOW much I have invested in Apple, it doesn't buy my juicy details on mr. steve jobs. I wish him the best of health and a speedy recovery, but if he doesn't want me know, then I don't want to know.

That's how an adult deals with such a situation, fwiw.

Still your eyes remained glued at this sad car wreck ?

You read like I read. I also feel self shame at this ... intrusion in Steve's life.

At this point I'm only arguing with people who are bent on misrepresenting what I've said. Many seem to prefer to argue with people with extreme opinions. Maybe it's because they have extreme opinions themselves and find it easier to shadowbox with people for whom they can fabricate extreme opinions that they don't actually have, than to have an actual discussion. I don't know. Anyhow, that's when these discussions start getting bizarre.

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but that's the most succinct and laugh-out-loud characterisation of Apple addicts I've ever heard

It's not a succint characterization of anything. It is a condescending, demeaning slam against people who don't agree with your viewpoint.

There is a cadre of people who post here that frequently come in with overwhelming negativity and present their views as facts, who then get miffed when intelligent people actually challenge them and require that they back up their assertions with actual information. Slurs and stupid commentary like the quote above is what generally results.

Sarbanes-Oxley changed the 8-K disclosure requirements for public corporations. Made them tougher and required them to be made in a more timely fashion. You could look it up. I did. The very document you cited pointed out that the rules were about to get tougher. They did.

What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.

ADD: In my previous reply to you when I said "I don't wish to engage you in a discussion on this at this time" that was the truth -- I had tons of errands to run and things to get done, and I was short on time. But I can see that I could have worded it better.

What Sarbanes-Oxley did, primarily, was to speed up the filing of the 8K (Section 409 of the Act). There were some additional clarifications of items already there, and a few items of disclosure were added --none of those remotely deals with health of the CEO.

I know, I looked at this stuff yesterday.

"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.

Based on what I've read, a goodly number of experts in corporate governance believe that Apple pushed the limits on disclosure. I can see their point, especially as an AAPL investor who's seen his investments hammered more than once over rumors that Apple could have easily quashed. Apple doesn't need to play this so close to the vest -- they just do, out of habit I suppose. As an investor this is annoying, and I think it could also get them in trouble down the line.

"Presumptive" is an important term of legal art -- it refers to things which can be assumed to be covered by a law, but it doesn't necessarily end there. Other things can be arguably covered by a law because of what the law generally intends to do. In this case, the law intends to require public corporations to disclose material events that a "reasonably prudent investor" might want to know about a company before buying or selling a stock. That's a pretty wide target.

I know what 'presumptive' means.

There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.

Thus, for instance, if Apple board can show that SJ kept them informed, they deliberated as a board, followed all of the business judgment criteria in arriving at their conclusion, and the conclusion they came to was that it is not material, or that a prudent investor would have taken into account the risk that SJ wouldn't be around one day, then there is little that shareholders can do. That is the nature of the US corporate governance system. (And, thank God for that, for o/w courts would be second-guessing everything that companies do).

If any of these so-called corporate governance 'experts' had a leg to stand on -- and I have not seen one that has cited an effective reasoning for how a shareholder might prevail -- you bet that some schmuck would have brought a lawsuit already.

You can't serve multiple masters. You are either in it for your customers or you are in it for your shareholders. Personally I would rather do business with a company that is in it for their customers.

It is unbelievable! I had to answer this statement given how naieve I feel it is even if it provokes a war.

How hard earned money which these corporations want is what allows them to innovate. You are treating Jobs and Apple like they are some type of god like cult only doing good for society and not interested in cash and should be allowed to trample on the investor even though they have sought our money.

There are two other keywords that you cite: "material" and "reasonably prudent investor." You can drive a truck through both of those, especially if, as a board, you have met all the criteria of the business judgment rule.

That truck goes both ways, is my point.

So far the company hasn't given anyone any real grounds to sue. If future events should suggest that Apple has misrepresented any of the facts bearing on Steve's ability to serve as CEO, then watch out. It would be even worse for the company if it turned out that people at the top knew, and traded on the information. I'm not saying this has happened or will happen, only that this is just the sort of thing that gets the SEC sniffing around and class action lawyers sharpening their pencils. I think Apple can avoid this risk entirely by being just a little more transparent. As a stockholder, I wish they would.

Firms aren't required to disclose medical details about executives, lawyers say. But they are required to divulge 'material' information investors should know before buying or selling stock.
By David Sarno and Walter Hamilton

June 25, 2009

Reporting from Los Angeles and New York Steve Jobs' medical condition turned out to be more serious than Apple Inc. officials had previously acknowledged -- and that has analysts and legal experts questioning whether the company ran afoul of federal securities rules.

Apple had disclosed in early January that Jobs had a "hormone imbalance" and would take a leave of absence, but never said he was so sick that he needed a liver transplant.

Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said. But they are required to disclose "material" information, which is defined as what a reasonable investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock.

"If they tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that's just as bad as telling something that flat isn't true," said Jeffrey C. Soza, a securities lawyer at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard & Shapiro in Los Angeles.

The Tennessee doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was "the sickest patient on the waiting list" at the time a donor liver became available.

Dr. James D. Eason said that Apple's key man had tested high -- more likely to die from the condition -- on an index that rates patients with end-stage liver disease.

But all that investors or the public knew came from two brief statements on Apple's website. The first, about the hormone imbalance, was followed a week later by one from Jobs saying his health issue was "more complex" and would require a six-month leave.

The Cupertino, Calif., company has maintained that the initial statement was enough to satisfy disclosure rules imposed on publicly traded companies. But some analysts aren't so sure. Intentionally downplaying the extent of such an illness could set Apple on the wrong side of securities laws, Soza said.

Investor Warren E. Buffett agreed that Apple had been less than forthright. "Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple," he said in a CNBC-TV interview Wednesday. "Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact."

The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.

"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.

Jobs, who founded Apple in 1979, is widely considered a visionary whose products have repeatedly allowed the company to reinvent itself and stay ahead of the competition. His importance to the company fuels the debates on how much information about his health is material for investors.

"Steve is Apple," said Danielle Levitas, an analyst for industry research firm IDC. "The company was on the skids, and he came back to revive them. No doubt, if he were gone, it would be a different company. There aren't a whole lot of people out there like Steve Jobs."

Nor are there many companies whose fate seems so closely tied to that of a single person, said Stephen Davis, a corporate governance expert at Yale University's Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance.

"Whether he's able to come back, in what capacity and when are all highly relevant to Apple's owners," Davis said. "We're in the middle of huge financial crisis that's been caused in part by huge failures of corporate governance. This is an age when you would hope corporations would get that shareholders need some pretty high-quality disclosure."

The Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on the situation.

The revelation of Jobs' illness riled critics because it comes on the heels of long-standing displeasure with Apple's secretive culture and what detractors say is its grudging disclosure of important issues.

"Across the board the company is tight-lipped and tends to hold information close to its vest," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at RiskMetrics Group, a New York advisor to large investors on governance issues. "This isn't an isolated issue with Apple. It's a major concern at this point."

Apple agrees with Speer's view that Jobs' health is a private matter, and it has said almost nothing about it even after news of the liver transplant.

"Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June," reiterated Apple spokesman Steve Dowling.

He noted that the Tennessee doctors were "authorized" to release their statement late Tuesday about Jobs' condition, but declined to comment on whether Apple should have said more to investors.

Dowling also said none of the eight members of the board of directors would be available to comment. Former Vice President Al Gore and current and former chief executives of Google Inc., Genentech Inc. and Intuit Inc. declined to comment. Three other directors did not return calls.

It would be boring if they lay down their product roadmap like many other companies do.

True, but this secrecy also means that products don't get properly tested prior to release (which requires getting beta software into the hands of lots of people and prototype hardware out into the real world). The most recent example of this I can point to is the broken SATA implementation in the new Macbook Pros. Fixed quickly, but it should have been fixed before shipping.

With Apple again failing to advise shareholders that chief executive Steve Jobs underwent major surgery, the New York Times has published a profile of the company's unparalleled aura of secrecy, which stems from products to personnel and everything in between.

[QUOTE=bizwarrior;1438720]I am sure I will upset the Apple fanboys in here but this is wrong. I am an Apple shareholder and Jobs health affects the price of the stock. If he should pass on without warning many people would take a hit in regards to their investment.

You got plenty of warning chief. And Apple's secrecy (read: discretion) has sent the stock price soaring, which is the real problem.